Who should we hate?

Then it is pretty obvious that you have not read my posts in this thread or understood the content.What I have said is that the US is the only nation that actually has the capability to be a threat to all the rest of the world. You even acknowledge that fact.

quote:

---

We probably could take over any part of the world we wanted to:

---

A first step in determining threat assessment is to identify capabilities.Done.The question in this thread began with the question of whether we should hate Islam or whether Islam itself is a threat.I pointed out that no Islamic nation has the capability to be a major threat to the US.So no Islamic State is a threat.Then there were comments, mostly from Buz, that Islam as a religion is planning on world domination.I pointed out that Fundamental Apocalyptic Christianity supports a world ending war.The question then became "Is there a Nation that has the capability to actually bring about Armageddon?"The only nation that I know of that has a significant population that believes in the myth of Armageddon AND that actually has the capability to bring about Armageddon is the US.So as a conclusion, the real threat to most nations of the world would be a US controlled by fundamentalist Christians that believed in the likelihood of Armegeddon and that Armageddon is a desirable outcome.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That would be fine, as far as it goes. However, with most Islamic nations, religion is dominant and the secular state is secondary. Islamic nations have formed the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), comprised of 57 states, to speak with one voice. Fundamentalists from a lot of countries, including the US, have gone to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to join their co-religionists. Unlike enemies we have faced in the past, we are not looking at any single nation or small group of nations. We are now seeing a threat that crosses any and all national boundaries, and in fact supersedes them. I rarely agree with anything Buz says, but in this case he is just taking them at their word. This is something that has been a fundamental part of Islam since it's inception, and there is no reason to think it has changed. They have experienced no Reformation yet. The local fundamentalists would create a theocracy in a minute if they could. They are a true menace, but fortunately they are a tiny majority.It would be nice if the radical fundamentalists in the Muslim world were such a tiny number, but unfortunately that isn't the case. And those radical fundamentalists wield a far greater power than do our local nutcases. They are dominant in a number of countries. Fortunately, most of them live a world away.And our local nutcases haven't a chance of getting nukes. Pakistan already has nukes (which from reports the US has been keeping a very close eye on--thankfully) and Iran is doing it's best to get them. I don't know about you, but the thought of Iran with nukes doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling.I think you, for some reason, are doing your best to underestimate and downplay the threats that are coming together in the world today. (And no, the local Dominionists are not the threat.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So if Islam is supposedly pure evil, what is your final solution?

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Actually I don't see even Iran with nuclear weapons as much of a threat to the US.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Neither Mao nor Stalin ever produced a genocide of more than a couple of million people. What you are quoting is the sum of all of their genocides, and with the indiscriminate massacres to boot. This is technically speaking not a genocide; rather, it is a total victim count.What cavediver is referring to is single instances of genocide, of which the Native American genocide is the largest.
Nobody is "trying to pin" anything on anybody. It's a simple fact that the largest single genocide -- i.e. a mass murder of a single class of people (be it ethnic, religious or cultural)) -- exactly as cavediver said and going by his numbers plus those found elsewhere -- was conducted by people of the USA.While Mao and Stalin were indeed been responsible for killing more people, they were not the instigators of the worst genocides; the US was. That difference in meanings seems to be the (current) problem.Additionally, cavediver pointed out that neither of them nor any of the others you quoted are still around. The USA is. And it likely will be for a very long time.
None of those you quoted posed a significant threat to anybody beyond their own borders. The USA does: any and every other country could at any time be subject to complete destruction by them, and cannot do anything about it.Edited by Nij, : Fix quoted section.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are willing to downplay the killings (under any name you wish) perpetrated by Mao and Stalin. Perhaps you can explain this to me: I just don't understand it, yet it is so common.And generally those same people are eager to exaggerate the killings of Native Americans, and to blame them all on the US. They are forgetting that Spain and subsequently Mexico controlled California and the Southwest--from roughly Texas to Utah and Nevada--long before the US did, and in many areas the death toll (a significant portion of which was from diseases) was already extremely high when the US began to influence the areas. For example, in some of the Southwest and in the California mission areas the Native populations had already dropped by something like 90% by the time the Americans arrived. That was due to the actions of Spain and subsequently Mexico, not the US. Click to enlarge.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

While your point is well taken, I beg to differ over your and others definition of genocide.To me there is a difference between the Holocaust (which to me singularly refers to the deliberate mass murder of Jews during the Nazi regime), and genocide which is the deliberate mass murder of any other supposedly identifiable group through either direct or indirect, yet deliberate, means.Therefore there was definitely a genocide of American Indians, Armenians, Aborigines, Arians, Bantus, Bosnians, Bushmen, Cathars, Catholics, Chinese (see Nanking Massacre among others), Congolese, Danakils Ethiopians, Early Christians, Gypsies, Harares, Hutus, Hindus, Homosexuals, the handicapped, Jews (other than the Holocaust), Koisan, Kurds, Lollards, Manicheans, Mormons, Muslims (ask Vlad the Impaler), New Gunians etc.Apologies to the Piro (extinct), Tutsi, Tasmanians (extinct), Tibetans and anyone else I failed to mention for the sake of brevity.I would hope that given this abbreviated list, one realizes the USA, nor any other nation or people are not solely responsible for all genocides throughout history. After all, there were Belgians (see King Leopold's Ghost), Greeks, Romans, Catholics, Protestants, Portuguese, Jews (read your Bible), English, French, Hans, Hindustanis, Mongolians, Muslims, Russians, Serbs, Spaniards, Turks, (to mention a few) and even cannibals who were responsible for genocide.Some even had New World colonies (yeah, I'm talking about you Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and the UK - before the USA existed).References upon request.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

It is not demonstrated that the deaths were intentional (and thus murder). Obviously many were, but the vast majority died due to exposure to novel diseases. Some may have been deliberately exposed - but the idea of a systemic attempt at disease-based genocide is not supported as far as I can tell.

read the bible god likes a genocide or 2 so there is nothing wrong whit it, i find it kinda wrong but im an atiest

I suggest that we should hate the people of the Andaman Islands. This has numerous advantages:(1) Clearly it is necessary for us to hate someone.
(2) We don't know much about them, which makes them easier to hate.
(3) As far as I know, they're not white (but see point 2).
(4) For all you know, they are the enemies of all you hold dear. And cannibals, I read that somewhere.
(5) They are unlikely to find out what we think of them.
(6) If they do, they stand no real chance of changing our minds.
(7) When it becomes necessary (i.e. when our level of hatred and hysteria has reached what is technically known as the "Limbaugh Point") we could probably liberate them from themselves within a couple of days. Less if we use nukes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

no hate the penguins they are the cause of the polar caps melting NUKE them where they stand

I was not saying none of those genocides existed.
I was saying that the genocide enacted by the USA against Native American people was larger than any other single genocide so far enacted by anyone else, while pointing out the difference between a genocide -- discussed below -- and a "mere" mass murder. While the examples of mass murder provided were larger than that genocide, none of the single genocides included were. I would have said that is another defintion of genocide, although perhaps not so precise and accurate. After all, homosexuals are a "supposedly identifiable" group yet wholesale slaughter of them would not be genocide. Similarly for say, welders or chemists or football players: these are all "supposedly identifiable" groups but focused killing of these would not be genocide either.That is why I include the rider "on an ethnic or religious basis", expressed in various ways, when defining genocide. It excludes those other groups.
By including that point, the Holocaust is a genocide; the targeted killing of a group on the basis of their ethnicity and/or religion. The targeted killing of homosexuals and disabled persons at the same time and place by the same people, to contrast, was not a genocide.

Just to make it clear that each time you reference "cavediver" (myself) in your post, you should be referencing onifre (not myself). Don't worry, it's an easy confusion, owing to me (not) being hispanic, (not) being a US citizen, (not) being a professional comedian, and not (not) being a cosmologist

{facepalm}I never said they weren't huge mass murderers. I said that by definition, the US carried out the largest genocide.Two posts now where I've explained what is and should be meant by genocide, and at least three distinct times where the difference between genocide and mass murder was explicitly stated.Please read thoroughly and ensure you got the message before assuming somebody is out to get you.
That paranoia which seems so typical of US citizens rears its ugly head once again.

My bad.I'd just arrived from a thread where I'd given three of your posts a five-rating. got 'diver on the brain, it seems...Edited by Nij, : Better subtitle.